Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 1, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 22 January 1892 — THE DUTY ON LEAD ORE [ARTICLE]

THE DUTY ON LEAD ORE

HOW IT INJURES THE LEAD INDUSTRY. Building: Up Mexico at the Expense of the United States—Reduce the Duties on Cordage and Rope—Why They Oppose Free Wool. One Year of the Lead Ore Duty. McKinley granted the demands of the lead miners of Colorado, and imposed a duty of li cents per pound on the lead content of imported ores. Previous to the passage of the McKinley tariff such ores had been free of duty. The mass of our imports of these' ores come from Mexico, being shipped thence to Kansas, Missouri, and other States having large smelting works, where they are smelted with the silver-lead ores of the United States. The mixture of these ores in the smelters reduces the cost of production considerably. The lead ore miners of Colorado believed that were a duty put on Mexican ores the price of their lead would be advanced. They cared little for the injury which such a course would bring to the smelters and miners of sil-ver-lead ores. The duty has been in force a year, and its effects can therefore be shown. The production of lead in the leading States, the miners of which secured the duty of li cents per pound on lead ore, in 1890 and 1891 has been as follows: . Production , 1890. 1891. , , Tons. Tons. Arizona and California I,UCO 1 000 Colorado 60,030 64,000 Idaho and Montana 24,000 25 OX) Nevada 2,500 2,500 Utah 24.000 25,000 Total 111.500 117,60 J The production of lead in these States increased during the year only 6,000 tons. The producers and smelters of lead in Missouri, Kansas, Illinois and Wisconsin, who use the imported ores as a flux in the smelting of our own more refractory silver-lead ores, opposed the duty and declared that it would greatly injure their business. The production of lead in these States in 1891 as compared with 1890 was as follows: 1890. 1891. , Tons. Tons. Lead produced 55,000 40,u00 A falling off of 15,000 tons, making the net demand in the production of lead in the States enumerated in 1891 9,000 tons. How this was brought about is shown by Mr. Both well, of the engineering and Mining Journal, in his annual review of the lead industry. Says Mr. Bothwell: “For a short time indeed, toward the end of 1890, the price of lead was advanced by the McKinley bill, and the smelting charges on dry silver ores were also increased quite heavily, owing to a temporary scarcity of lead fluxing ores, but a more liberal interpretation of the bill of the Treasury Department again allowed the Mexican ore to enter. The price of lead thenceforward declined (though smelting charges did not), and as a final outcome it must be apparent to every one, from a study of these statistics, that the McKinley bill has begn an injury rather than a benefit to the lead, and especially to the silver miners of the West.

“This result must set some of the intelligent miners to thinking who profited When they were injured, or at least not benefited, by the legislation which they were told would prove so greatly to their advantage. But had Mexican lead ores continued to come in free, what would have been the result? Undoubtedly the smelting of the Mexican ores would have been done in this country, to the obvious advantage of our metallurgical industry, instead of in works built with American capital in Mexico. “Lead might have ruled lower in price had a very large amount of ore come in from abroad, but this would have greatly stimulated consumption, and wqpld have kept down smelting charges on dry ores, the mining of which gives occupation to more men than does the mining of lead ores. ” Turning from the injurious effects of the duty on the production and smelting of silver - lead ores in the United States to tho effect on the production of lead in Mexico, Mr. Bothwell says: “Previous to 1890, only a few unimportant smelting works existed in Mexico, the product of which was very small, but when the American market was closed to the Mexican miners, who could not afford to pay the heavy freight charges to Europe on the low grade ores, nothing was left for them to do but to establish a smelting industry of their own. The opportunity was promptly seized, not only by them but also by some of the, larger American smelters, who found themselves deprived of a portion of their supplies; they, too, went over to Mexico and started up smelting works, which are now partly in operation, and will be entirely so early this year. “At present the production of lead bullion in Mexico goes on at the rate of about 1,200 tons per month, but very shortly this will be increased to about 2,500 tons, and may by the end of this year amount to 3,000 tons. If this latter figure is reached it will mean that Mexico will thus produce about onesixth as much as the United States, and there can be no doubt that most of this bullion would have been produced hei'e had not the law been altered in a most deplorably narrow-minded spirit.” Since the duty on imported ores benefits no one in the United States, but has caused great injury to the silver-lead ore producers and smelters, why should It not be repealed?